The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-20

Protestant was not in line with the posi-
tive attributes of God. The Master never
protested, not even on Calvary. Did
Protestant harmonize with any suggestion
OF the Bible? Who ever heard of bride
called by one name, and the bridegroom by
anotheR The name brought the church
into bad company, and confused il with ag-
nostics and anarchists. lie esteemed it q
dire misfortune that the church held
the present name. Protest mt , 10 the church
today was about as the "Galilcean" as ap-
piled TO our Savior in his time. He had
little objection TO the title Episcopal"
though 1t was misleading and opposed TO the
traditions Of the church. lie did not crave
a change so much ~ to have il at the cost of
schism. II had and could, labor under
the misfortune of q misnomer. The
Mns Tss Ss regular Row speaker PSn. introduced TrnN
d. D., of Boston, Mass. lie said that il was
impossible to discuss n change without at the
same time thinking of new title. The basis
OF the claim of those who held the necessity
OF changing was the prcpostcrous idea OF
adopting the Church Of America" as a
title. Such a change implied that the church
must take the stand that il was the only
church, in view of the apostolic
succession, in the sight of the Lord
Jesus Christ Multitudes in the church
did not hold TO the doctrine of the apostolic
succession, TO the view that il was the only
church by divine right. The church was
narrowing itself by the constant assertion Of
the dogma that II was alone the church Of
Christ. These were the things which were
keeping our church out of sym
pathy with the people. Let her
be the church of America and then
she could take the name, and not until she
ceased TO copy and bring over foreign Gus
toms. The American people believed the
work of christians wonderful power for
good in this country. The Protestant Epis-
copal church held aloof from the people.
The next speaker was the Hon. l.. Bradford
Prince, OF Flushing, l.. |. lie said that il
was practical question, how can We
best serve the interests Of the
Lord2 Here In the midst Of 0O,0OO,OOO
people the church was to be the leavcn OF
them. II was no child's play 10 characterize
the whole American people. The practical
laity Of the church found in the present
name OF the church terrible obstacle to
their attempt TO Christianizc the American
people. II was In every way an obstacle TO
church growth Briefly, in this land the
church has two great enemies, inhdclity and
Romanism. The latter came upon this soil
claiming allegiance To foreign bishop. The
present name was a badge Of sectaTianism.
We could not expect the other dcnomna-
tions 10 become Protestant Episcopalians,'
but they could invite them into the Amer
can church,
The Rev. VIM. Circus, rector Of 81. Mi
chacls church at Baltimore, Md, next
spoke, taking the place OF Bishop Thompson,
of Mississippi lie was greatly ag,unishcd az
the contradiction of the bishop Of Spring
field Ivy q speaker who had preceded him.
lie had listened 90 n most remarkable exc
gcsis Of the scriptures. Jesus Christ had pro
tested. Did he not protest against cyiR
Were we 10 be hlasphcmcd for holding to
the name which signifcd great
historical epoch in the church, What
was the matter with the name which
We had all these years been living
with in blasphcmy! Did protestant mean
anarchy-an entire disregard ot Gods word!
II did not. Protestant was positive. There
was nothing In protCstantism that implied
anarchy or an unlimited right to protest
against any aud every thing. That right was
limited by the thirty-ninc articles Protestant
was not merely q negative, IL commcmor,tcd
n great victory in an awful fight. The church
was becoming moro protestant every day.
gentleman who preceded him was an llus'
tmtion Of protcstantism by the very views
hc proclaimed.
The Rev. u. W. Martin, of Philadelphia,
next spoke lie had been indifferent to the
change of the name. until hc had heard the
fcrycnt address Of the bishop Of Trinity,
Boston. lie was what was called
q ritualst Of the church, but hc did
not believe that n single one of the
rtualisis would be- for changing the name 20
the Catholic Church II America lie would
rather 1860 times have the Pope of Rome
over him than a Unitarian, or one who had
no regard for the church Of
Christ II all the denominations
were 10 be- divided into rrotcstants
aud Catholics he would join the latter.
The danger of the day was not IN being too
much. but too little. II WIS only at u late
convention that he had heard an Episcopal
clergyman get up aud rcpudiato the doctrine
of the atoncmcnt The Episcopal church
has run upon narrow lines. The rector oi
Trinity had, NJ much M he 10 refuse any
one the communion outside Of his own
church.
lie felt that he was n much broader
chuvhinan than those who had preceded
him.
The Rev. T. r. Davenport, Of Cairo, Ill
the Rev. Augustus Prentice, of Indiana, and
the Rev r. :. Cotcs, Of Cleveland, o., also
addressed the congress.